Cyber-fraud account freezes must preserve access to funds beyond the disputed amount.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking de-freezing of his IDBI Bank account No. 0131078064100.

He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors., concerning accounts frozen following cybercrime complaints, and on Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., which considered the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10 April 2026.

The Court recorded that the disputed amount in the petitioner’s account was ₹1,150.

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should remain frozen in full when the identified disputed amount was ₹1,150.

Whether the disputed amount should instead be secured while allowing the petitioner to operate the account, subject to directions consistent with the cited precedents and SOP.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief against an account freeze.

In Malcolm Murayis, the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit and permitted its liquidation if the police did not obtain an order from the competent Magistrate within three months.

Archana applied the SOP dated 10 April 2026 and emphasized that restraints on bank accounts should be proportionate, ordinarily limited to the suspected amount where that would adequately protect the investigation, and considered through the prescribed grievance mechanism.

The Court applied these decisions mutatis mutandis to the present case.

The Court found the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana applicable to the petitioner’s case.

Since the identified disputed amount was ₹1,150, it directed that this amount be secured in a fixed deposit rather than maintaining a freeze on the entire account.

This preserved the disputed funds for the investigation while permitting the petitioner to use the account; any further complaint concerning another transaction could be addressed by the bank in accordance with law and the SOP.

The disputed amount could be liquidated only upon an order by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such an order, the petitioner could withdraw the amount after giving intimation to the police agency.